Visualization

[JeffS]

I no longer subscribe here, but did read the publicly available intro to the most recent article.  The author must not closely follow Ansel’s writings, or his recorded video interviews, where he uses the term visualization, not pre-visualization, which he found redundant.  The latter term was used by Minor White, who incorporated it into his broader concepts, which included the term ‘post-visualization’.  But that’s not from Ansel.  This is well documented.

[jmlphotography]

Glad to see someone else is aware of the Adams vs White use of the term.  In later years Adams occasionally added the redundant "pre" in his teaching.  I would like to add that according to Wikipedia, Weston was the first person to use the term pre-visusalization, about 10 years before Adams described the process of visualization.

[JeffS]

Ansel’s book trilogy (The Camera; The Negative; The Print) is iconic. The title of the first chapter of the first book?  “Visualization”.

[josh.reichmann]

One can also easily argue that “conscious awareness” is itself redundant but a certain leniency should be allowed when these terms are applied to arts or any application beyond the simply academic.

[JeffS]

But we shouldn’t be so lenient with regard to the author’s misunderstanding of the historical record and his “chuckling” over an improper attribution. Especially on a photo site that’s attempting to set a high standard.

[josh.reichmann]

But we shouldn’t be so lenient with regard to the author’s misunderstanding of the historical record and his “chuckling” over an improper attribution. Especially on a photo site that’s attempting to set a high standard.

I think the chuckling is a light gateway to his reverence and simply a way to suggest that two terms are ultimately interchangeable, no?

[JeffS]

No. He’s laughing at the term that Ansel disdained, and similarly
thought redundant. The first sentence is flat out incorrect.  So maybe lighthearted, but ignorant, especially from someone who says he follows and reveres Ansel. 

[LawrenceBraunstein]

Many thanks to JeffS and jmlphotography for bringing to attention Bruce Heinemann’s groundless claim that Ansel Adams used the term ‘pre-visualization’ which, as JeffS correctly points out, Adams didn’t like and found unnecessarily redundant.  He often reminded his readers what the dictionary definition of ‘visualization’ is, namely (if I may quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary) the “formation of mental visual images”. One does not ‘visualize’ what one sees until our ‘inner eye’ takes command of the information our eyes are sending to our brain. This is where Adams saw the redundancy in the term ‘pre-visualization’. Mr. Heinemann simply got it wrong in his article. By the way, in Adams first series of photo books, the ‘Basic Photo Series’ first published in (I believe...) 1948 and consisting of five smaller volumes, he repeatedly and quite consistently used the term ‘visualization’ (without the ‘pre-‘). I was a bit disappointed that Josh Reichmann didn’t (or couldn’t) accept the mistake for what it was. Once again, many thanks to JeffS and jmlphotography for taking the time to comment on this irrefutable mistake.

With best regards,

Lawrence Braunstein

[josh.reichmann]

Many thanks to JeffS and jmlphotography for bringing to attention Bruce Heinemann’s groundless claim that Ansel Adams used the term ‘pre-visualization’ which, as JeffS correctly points out, Adams didn’t like and found unnecessarily redundant.  He often reminded his readers what the dictionary definition of ‘visualization’ is, namely (if I may quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary) the “formation of mental visual images”. One does not ‘visualize’ what one sees until our ‘inner eye’ takes command of the information our eyes are sending to our brain. This is where Adams saw the redundancy in the term ‘pre-visualization’. Mr. Heinemann simply got it wrong in his article. By the way, in Adams first series of photo books, the ‘Basic Photo Series’ first published in (I believe...) 1948 and consisting of five smaller volumes, he repeatedly and quite consistently used the term ‘visualization’ (without the ‘pre-‘). I was a bit disappointed that Josh Reichmann didn’t (or couldn’t) accept the mistake for what it was. Once again, many thanks to JeffS and jmlphotography for taking the time to comment on this irrefutable mistake.

With best regards,

Lawrence Braunstein

Fair enough. Perhaps it’s about a similar process with a useful difference. I agree that not only is the “pre” (for general purposes) redundant but as it sounds like Ansel understood - a different enough phenomenon requiring we decide which one to jettison.

Perhaps the differentiation is a conceptual one rather than actual though. In Tibetan Buddhist philosophy on cognition (which I have studied with a Lama for some years), visualization is exactly as you’ve stated - the conscious rendering of an object which would suggest a previously apprehended (through the “sense gates” (eyes etc) form.

“Pre-visualization” suggests (in this domain) more of a personal projection upon previously rendered objects. I would however argue that ALL visualizations are packed with imaginative embellishments. A pure visualization would be to use our conceptual (holographic and sense entangled minds) to perfectly replicate an object (keep in mind that we don’t see with our eyes anyways, we see with (portions of) our brains).

 Memory and the nature of mind would make a pure “visualization” a difficult task.

Anyways - I’m no scholar on Ansel Adam’s take -! So I stand corrected in respect to my defence of the author, and trust yours.

Thanks for the correction.

J   

[JeffS]

And you didn’t trust mine?  I made the same points, including the fact that the first chapter of first book in Ansel’s famous trilogy, The Camera, was specifically titled ‘visualization’.  And I twice said he disdained the term pre-visualization. The author’s take, from the first sentence, was flat wrong. You’re welcome.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ahmmm...

[josh.reichmann]

Ahmmm...

The truth is... Led Zeppelin.

[josh.reichmann]

And you didn’t trust mine?  I made the same points, including the fact that the first chapter of first book in Ansel’s famous trilogy, The Camera, was specifically titled ‘visualization’.  And I twice said he disdained the term pre-visualization. The author’s take, from the first sentence, was flat wrong. You’re welcome.

Very well. Thank you too !

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ahmmm...

I mean, we just barely avoided a WWIII, and some of our esteemed forum members are on the brink of starting a new one over a pre-prefix (ooops, did I just do it again?) 🙃

[josh.reichmann]

I mean, we just barely avoided a WWIII, and some of our esteemed forum members are on the brink of starting a new one over a pre-prefix (ooops, did I just do it again?) 🙃

These things have a way of detonating themselves. Or maybe a dark cabal of semantic language lords pull the strings from a global network of shadow lairs.